Today marks day two of Chicago mayoral candidate Toni Preckwinkle not running ads. That is an odd choice, and her answers don’t help any.
Preckwinkle claims her team is “making strategic decisions”. It seems that the strategy here is ‘lose’. Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debate, TV has been king, at least insofar as determining who the people viewed as the best candidate. For a candidate to suspend ads with less than two weeks to the election is unheard of.
Of course, Preckwinkle says this is all strategy. Nothing to see here!
Personally, I suspect that either they spent too much too soon, and are pulling back as money runs out, or they have some internal polling that shows they cannot win. I wonder if Preckwinkle’s ongoing negativity (including after the general election last month) hurt her. Or if inexplicably bringing up Lightfoot’s sexuality might have. Why not both?
Frankly, Preckwinkle needs to lose. As I wrote before, neither will be good for Chicago, but Lightfoot seems to be less bad. Preckwinkle is a known problem. A Democrat insider (and party leader) who is tied to massive corruption in the persons of Joe Berrios and (allegedly) Ed Burke. Preckwinkle’s office also pushed for illegal implementation of her disastrous soda tax. It would be nice to see her voted out of office in Cook County too, but I am not holding my breath. In 2006 Cook County voted for a man who was likely in a persistent vegetative state after a stroke. Of course, the Democratic Party concealed that fact, but still…
Blocking the Toni Preckwinkles of the world is important. Maybe the next goal can be an actual opposition to the Democratic regime in Chicago.
Robert O’Rourke is running for President. His resume to the public as a whole is losing to Ted Cruz in the midterms. Despite the ‘beto’ nickname beloved of the media, O’Rourke is not, shockingly, Hispanic in the least.
Robert Francis O’Rourke was born on September 26, 1972, at Hotel Dieu Hospital in El Paso, Texas, to Pat Francis O’Rourke and his second wife Melissa Martha O’Rourke (née Williams). He has Irish and Welsh ancestry. His family gave him the nickname in infancy “Beto”, a common Spanish nickname for first names ending in “-berto”, initially to distinguish him from his namesake grandfather.
His announcement included the absurdist messianic statement “We are truly now, more than ever, the last great hope of Earth.” While many on the right may believe that of the US, the official Democratic Party line has been rather the opposite. So it is logical to conclude that this is O’Rourke referring to himself.
President Obama had the decency to win before he declared himself the savior of the world.
Here is a picture of O’Rourke from NBC, demonstrating that he fits in with the Democratic Party’s antisemitism, as he offers a Nazi salute as limp as he is.
…but that won’t matter to the right, because they will still unite to attack us.
There is an inexplicable trend on the right to celebrate the left’s habit of attacking itself. This week saw ‘vagina cupcakes’ being attacked for excluding ‘women without vaginas’, and Will Smith not being black enough to play Richard Williams (father of Venus and Serena Williams). And the right loves to point and laugh as the left attacks itself.
We really need to stop that. Why? Simple – it doesn’t mean anything in the bigger picture. Because in the big picture, the left will stop their internecine warfare to unite against conservatives and Republicans. Every time. See, they will always unite against conservatives because they have come to believe we are some kind of existential threat to the world. No, that isn’t hyperbole. They truly seem to hate us at a deep level.
And we have our own internal problems. Namely, we won’t unite to defeat them.
Instead, we support them over our own interests. Also, some Republicans are on record wishing Clinton had won the White House in 2016. And not just out-of-touch pundits. Our Libertarian cousins ran a vice-presidential candidate that openly endorsed Clinton…and he was running on an opposing ticket!
We need to get our own houses in order before we look to the left and smile at their infighting. We need to reunite the conservatives and the Republicans into a united front against the existential threats of socialism and runaway progressivism. We need to stop supporting the enemy…
And there is the problem.
Our leadership can’t even define who the enemy is. Instead, we focus on the players, not the game. We need to focus on the game for a change. Don’t attack Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Talib, Nancy Pleosi, Ilhan Kahn, or Elizabeth Warren directly. That generates sympathy for them, as the mean conservatives attack the helpless women. While I know that’s hypocritical, it was decided that was ok. So there it is. Attacking the people is useless in the grand scheme of it all.
Attack the philosophy, the plan, the position. Attack the person only in a head-to-head election.
Why do we not support the Green New Deal? Because that inane scheme would cost more than the GWP. Also because it is divisive and designed to fail. We don’t oppose it because Ocasio-Cortez backs it. Why do we oppose socialism? Because it is reductive, inhuman, inhumane, and causes suffering every time it is implemented. We don’t oppose socialism because Warren, Sanders, et al support it. Do you see the difference?
Positions, not people, are the right targets
By focusing effort on positions, we begin to show why we are a better option. We know we can’t convince people to not follow the Pied Piper down to hell. But we have to try to show them a better path. It is a harder path, to be sure. It is a path with no freebies. The left has trained people to believe they deserve freebies. Because of that, we face an uphill battle.
It is a battle we need to fight. There is no joy in copying the left’s return to enforced compliance with dogma. But come on, we need to at least be able to hold the line on core conservative beliefs. We need to clean our own house before we will be able to fight the left for the soul of our nation.
Unless we do that, when they stop infighting, they will overrun us.
But The Federalist’s Jessica Gulmire added a wrinkle I didn’t consider in her column about the IOC decision:
Viewership is what it’s all about. It’s no secret that the Olympic Games have been losing ratings for years. Blame their old-fashioned ceremonies, their cheesy endorsements, or the outdated network broadcast littered with commercials no one watches. Whatever the reason, they need something new, something fresh.
…
Women’s sports don’t draw the same ratings as men’s, unless of course we parade about in lingerie. It’s a harsh reality. That is what makes news of the change in the Olympic rules so defeatist.
This is a valid point. Absent the outliers of gymnastics and skating, men tend to receive more coverage on a sport-by-sport basis. Last year’s Winter Olympics in were the first time that the total time shifted towards women. As shown here, excluding pair events, women’s sports received 52.2% of NBC’s total airtime. What is not shown is how much of that was due to who was participating. Famous female skiers, for example, or up and coming new snowboarders. Also remember, the numbers here are only NBC’s primetime coverage, not the coverage on all the other NBC stations, or at other times.
So, of course the money matters to NBC. That is how they pay their people and all.
The problem is, outside the freakshow aspect (and while I don’t subscribe to that, many others will), what is the attraction of biological men outperforming biological women? Especially to women? Especially to, perhaps, younger girls just starting out, who see in the plainest possible terms that there is no fair playing field for them anymore…
Just going to toss this out there then…how does the IOC define a trans woman? What threshold will they use? And how will that be received by the left (hint: poorly, no matter what they say)?
Or, how is ‘all hate speech’ as a counter to Antisemitism in any way morally different from ‘not all men’ or ‘all lives matter’?
It isn’t. Not at all.
Due to the mainstream media giving Democrats cover, we get a parade of people treating Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar like a silly child who just doesn’t understand. I would think that insulting too, but what do I know?
What I do know is she is simply cannot be unaware of what she is saying, especially when called out on it. So, instead of apologizing, and / or keeping her antisemitism private, she doubles down. House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) excused her statements as the result of having to flee Somalia and live in a Kenyan refugee camp for some years. Then basically demanded the children of holocaust survivors check their privilege. After all, their families survived a program of genocide and industrial extermination…her family fled a civil war with the family intact. That is, make no mistake, a hugely impactful event in a person’s life. I do not for a moment doubt it had a profound effect on her and her family.
But I don’t think that is where Omar’s antisemitism comes from. Let’s be real here. The factions in Somalia were not backed by, connected to, or actually Jewish. Somalia is officially Sunni Muslim, with no other religions listed (legal?). And Kenya is, per the CIA World Factbook, 83% Christian (Protestant 47.7%, Catholic 23.4%, other Christian 11.9%), 11.2% Muslim, 1.7% Traditionalists, 1.6% other, 2.4% none, 0.2% unspecified (2009 est.). No mention of Jewish here. So Omar’s antisemitism must come from elsewhere.
Never assume malice where stupidity is an option?
It is also possible Omar is just a twit. Yes, it is right to examine our alliance with Israel. And to examine all alliances to ensure we see some benefit. Conversely, the Israelis should do the same. That’s normal. In this case, the US gains an ally in an unstable region; stands up for a democrats nation in a land of despotism, dictatorship, and monarchy; and we keep our moral obligation to prevent another Holocaust.
So is it possible that her repeated ‘dual allegiance’ comment is just ignorance? Maybe she doesn’t know that slander was used against Kennedy, because he was Catholic, Joe Lieberman, because he was Jewish, Mitt Romney, because he was Mormon. It is possible she missed that.
By her own rules, however, Omar has dual allegiance to ‘Palestine’. Is it a slur to say that any Muslim that supports the ‘Palestinians’, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.? If so, then the sword cuts both ways, and it is equally a slur to apply that to Jews.
Does who supports you matter?
I remember attacks on President Trump over receiving support from some distasteful sorts. I said at the time that if he didn’t seek them out, then how is he responsible for their other beliefs? That sentence is not great, but the point is, if hate group X supports me over a non-hate-related issue (say, lower taxes), how am I responsible for their other beliefs? Of course, that fell on deaf ears, because to a lot of people, nothing President Trump does can ever be good.
So to them, I say this – if President Trump receiving support from bad people stains him, how do you respond to former KKK leader David Duke’s support of Ilhan Omar?
Huh. Isn’t that something.
Of course, that is neither to her credit or debit. Omar isn’t responsible for Duke’s actions. That her actions were praiseworthy because of their antisemitism is her fault, however.
What is to be done here?
As much as I would like to see the Democrats condemn bigotry, I don’t expect it. They have bigotry too deeply ingrained in their party and ideological DNA to condemn it. I would like to see Omar stripped of plum committee assignments as a form of censure, which won’t happen either. Again, to the Democratic Party leadership, her bigotry is less important than the appearance of party unity. So, sickeningly, all is forgiven when the ‘right people’ are involved. The official line is rapidly becoming “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
All that aside (and that should be a post of its own, if I can find the right way to say it), what should be done about Omar vis a vis her position in Congress? The answer is ‘nothing’. The citizens of Minnesota’s 5th District elected her, they bear the responsibility for her actions. Ilhan Omar’s opinions were available, her prejudices and antisemitism known, and still they voted for her. This is on their shoulders. The whole idea of the republican system is that the people elect someone who shares their values and goals, and that person champions them in Congress. That the residents of MN-5 chose Ilhan Omar says more about them than it does about her. They elected an anti-Semitic bigot as the person who best represented who they are. Full stop.
It is important to note that my vague disgust with Omar’s beliefs and MN-5’s decision to select her is in no way an endorsement of physical action against her. It is not an endorsement of bigoted slander against her either. Omar is a citizen, who possesses the same rights to her religion as any other human being. Those calling for violence against her for either her statements or beliefs are in the wrong. Also full stop.
The residents of MN-5 would be well-served in selecting another representative in 2020. Maybe someone who isn’t so openly bigoted would be nice.
I saw this endorsement of direct democracy on Facebook, and had to, in the finest conservative tradition, pounce. Here is the image again:
Ok, let’s unpack that. Using the kind of self-serve kiosks that you see in newer McDonalds is funny, admittedly. Using them in the meme got me thinking. We are closer to national direct democracy than we have ever been.
And that is not a good thing. There are advantages to the republican form of government, not the least of which is a shield against mob rule. And make no mistake, that is exactly what direct democracy is – the rule of the mob. And no one wants that in their lives.
Liberal readers, consider that in direct democracy, if county X in state Y decides to outlaw homosexuals or illegal aliens, that’s the new law. Direct democracy for the win!
Conservative readers, consider that in direct democracy, if county X in state Y decides to outlaw fossil fuels, that’s the new law. Direct democracy for the win! And don’t laugh – see the Green New Deal and the inexplicably allowed to continue Juliana v. United States suit that seeks to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
But that’s just the tip of the direct democracy iceberg
How do you enforce one citizen / one vote rules that direct democracy requires? With modern technology it’s pretty easy, actually. Just offer up a fingerprint or rental scan, then vote. Well, easy except for the infrastructure to actually do it, which isn’t the iceberg I’m referring to.
Anyway, no, the iceberg in this analogy is the question ‘who owns the data’.
Didn’t think of that one, did you? Who owns all that juicy biometric data needed to prevent vote fraud? The government? Google? Apple? Who do you trust to keep it secret, keep it safe?
I don’t trust the government. They left my personal data open to whomever (read: China) wanted it in the OPM hack. Others in the bureaucracy have been leaking anything to the press they think can harm the President for a few years now. No, I can’t actually trust the government to keep vital personal data safe.
Equifax is out – same reason. Google is out. They have too much data on us already, and as a private company must not be trusted to run an election. Which also kicks out Apple, and every other company in the world.
So who do you trust with your data?
And no, it won’t just be the biometrics to secure the vote
In order to function as a direct democracy, each voter needs to be registered to a state, county, township (if used), municipality, ward (if used), etc. That information includes your name and address, of course – it has that now. When you patch in the needed information to vote – a biometric scan of some form – you enter into a scenario where the risk of identity theft becomes greatly heightened. If I have your name, address, and fingerprint, I can unlock your phone or computer, and gain direct access to your deepest personal data. Easily.
But why use biometrics, why not use a smart ID card, like Homeland Security uses? First, of course, is cost. Second, how do you vote without it? We have people hieing unto their fainting couches at the mere thought of requiring easily-obtained ID, which is also needed for almost every other governmental, financial, business, or employment function. How do you think they would respond to requiring a fancy new ID?
Also, if you can loose it, it isn’t secure. Full stop.
So, to recap – direct democracy is technologically possible in a nation of 300+ million people. Direct democracy needs to have a secure and unbeatable way of verifying votes in real time, and that requires infrastructure that does not exist, and a level of network security that the US government has proven incapable of providing. This would also represent an expansion of the government, even if a logical one, and resisting expansion is one of our foundational beliefs.
In other words, direct democracy isn’t an actual option.
It began as a joke – something so obvious even a blind lemur could see it. The Democrats seem canine-centric (Blue Dog, Yellow Dog), so I figured we on the right could use a fun animal, and frankly, lemurs are all the rage! So I hear. Kinda. Anyway, after deciding that the leadership is so inept that a blind lemur could lead better, I decided to create this movement. And perhaps even spin it off into the real world. Stranger things have happened.
